Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Here is the Response From the Los Angeles Times Explaining Their Reporting on That New Academic Freedom Law

David Zucchino at the Los Angeles Times has graciously given permission to post the messages he and I exchanged on the Times coverage of that new Academic Freedom law in Tennessee, and why the Times will not print a correction to their article. Please keep in mind that Mr. Zucchino’s comments, which are reproduced below, were sent to me in direct response to my query. So please read them charitably. For completeness, the three messages are reproduced below, in their original sequence.

Here is my first message to Mr. Zucchino:

April 12, 2012

David Zucchino
Los Angeles Times

Dear Mr. Zucchino:

In your article entitle "Creationism discussions are now OK in Tennessee schools" from April 11, 2012, you wrote:

"The measure will allow classroom debates over evolution, permitting discussions of creationism alongside evolutionary teachings about the origins of life. … The state’s teachers are not allowed to raise alternatives to evolution but, under the new law, would be required to permit discussion of creationism and other beliefs if they are raised in class."

This is unfortunately a severe mischaracterization of the new law. In fact, the law is careful to rule out just this sort of thing. The law says nothing about permitting discussions of creationism or any other religious theory, or for that matter anything not within the existing curriculum. You can see the actual Amendment here:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Amend/SA0901.pdf

The language is quite clear. It repeatedly states that the new law does not introduce new material into the existing curriculum, and is instead restricted to "scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education."

Furthermore, it goes even farther in avoiding any confusion with creationism as it states: "This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."

In addition to your erroneous description of the law, your article was also heavily slanted toward the opposition, even including Barry Lynn, a well known partisan on this issue. Unfortunately all of this simply feeds an on-going cultural myth that really needs clarification rather than reinforcement.

Will you be issuing a correction to the story?

Sincerely yours,

Cornelius Hunter

Here is Mr. Zucchino’s reply:

Mr. Hunter:

Thanks for your email regarding the Tennessee law.

A correction is not warranted.

A close reading of the amendments to the bill, and the sponsors’ summary of the bill, shows that the measure is clearly designed to open the door to debate over “differences of opinion about controversial issues,” as the bill's sponsors have written. They specifically mention evolution, clearly including it among “controversial issues” and requiring that competing viewpoints be discussed in class. Chief among competing viewpoints, of course, is creationism.

The sponsors appear to have calculated that including “creationism” or “intelligent design” in the bill’s language would make it difficult to pass, so they resorted to much more general language that allows broad interpretation under the term “scientific subjects.”

And while the amendment says the bill is not intended to promote any religious doctrine, it also says it is not intended to promote discrimination against a particular religion or “a particular set of religious beliefs.” Creationism, of course, falls within that description.

The amendment to the bill also says:

“The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education may cause debate and disputation including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

Again, the sponsors specifically point to evolution as a subject of “debate and disputation.” Thus competing viewpoints should be discussed in class, according to the bill. Among scientists, there are no widely accepted “scientific” alternatives to evolution. But there is creationism, which is certainly a subject of “debate and disputation.” Whether creationism has scientific validity is also a subject of “debate and disputation.” Therefore, it is allowed under the law.

If allowing discussion of creationism (as well as challenges to global warming and human cloning) isn't the purpose of the law, then what is? Discussions of scientific theories are already allowed in Tennessee schools.

As Gov. Haslam pointed out, the bill creates confusion.

The Los Angeles Times was one of many news outlets, along with AP, Reuters, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, the Nashville Tennessean and others, reporting that the bill will allow classroom discussion of creationism or other alternatives to evolution.

Sincerely,
David Zucchino
Los Angeles Times

Here is my follow-up reply:

April 13, 2012

David Zucchino
Los Angeles Times

Dear Mr. Zucchino:

You state that a close reading of the new Tennessee law shows that it requires competing viewpoints to evolution (such as creationism), be discussed in science class. I don’t know how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion from a close reading of the amendment. I am delighted that you read the amendment closely, but it makes no such requirement. If you could indicate the particular portion of the amendment that you think stipulates this requirement then I could clear this up.

Your conclusion has two major problems. First, the amendment does not require any types of classroom discussions, competing or otherwise. There simply is nothing in the amendment that makes any such requirement. What the amendment does state is that the Tennessee schools shall encourage scientific questions and critical thinking skills, assist teachers in presenting the science curriculum, and not prohibit teachers from helping students to understand the scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories covered in the curriculum. There is no such requirement of a classroom discussion.

Second, the amendment says nothing about competing theories, such as creationism. In fact, the language explicitly rules this out. It repeatedly stipulates that it is strictly in reference to the state’s curriculum framework. I don’t know how you could have inferred otherwise.

You also stated that the sponsors of the new law specifically point to evolution as a subject of “debate and disputation” and that therefore competing viewpoints should be discussed in class, according to the law.

Again, you seem to be avoiding the clear, obvious statements of the amendment. There is no mention or support given to competing viewpoints in the law. I don’t know how the language could be any more clear on this. The critical thinking, analysis of evidence, review of strengths and weakness are all of the science involved, and all deal with the state’s curriculum. There is absolutely nothing in the amendment that goes outside of the approved curriculum. And on top of that, the amendment explicitly states that it “only protects the teaching of scientific information.”

You seem to be confused about this. For instance, you stated that creationism is allowed under the law because whether or not it has scientific validity is a subject of “debate and disputation.” That would be an incredible contortion of the amendment. Whether or not creationism, or any other scheme, is or is not scientific is completely irrelevant.

The amendment is not allowing for whatever theories or viewpoints anyone wants to inject, just because someone argues that it is scientific. I am astonished you could have concluded this upon a close reading of the law. The language is crystal clear that it is addressing only the state’s curriculum.

Even creationists understand this. For instance AIG, one of the world’s leading creationist organizations, writes that: “media reports asserting that Tennessee law has introduced ‘creationism theory into science curriculum,’ and similar claims are simply wrong. The law does not permit or promote the teaching of intelligent design or creation science.” [1]

You also asked the question, if allowing discussion of challenges such as creationism isn’t the purpose of the law, then what is? This is troublesome for me for two reasons. First, you are divining a hidden, underlying purpose of the law, which not only is not in the law but is explicitly not allowed by the law, and then presenting that hidden purpose to your readers as an objective reading of the law. The fact that you are unable to imagine why legislators two thousand miles away would pass such a law does not give you the right to misrepresent the law to your readers.

Second, your question reveals that you are unaware how difficult it can be for students to raise scientific questions about theories. There is a hostile environment in our educational system, at all levels, to skepticism. Believe me, as one who has been blackballed by evolutionists, and one who has interacted with school boards and teachers, everything from passing grades to career options are at stake. This has nothing to do with creationism.

You also hypothesized that the amendment sponsors appear to have calculated that including “creationism” or “intelligent design” in the bill’s language would make it difficult to pass, so they resorted to much more general language that allows broad interpretation under the term “scientific subjects.”

But again, you are assigning motives that you imagine and projecting that onto the law itself. Even if your conspiracy theory was correct, that wouldn’t change the law. But I can also tell you that there is no such conspiracy. People I know involved with this legislation have no such calculation. And furthermore I know many people, myself included, who support these types of academic freedom bills who do not want to see creationism or intelligent design taught in our schools.

Let me be frank. I know journalists have time constraints and that you probably spent a grand total of a couple hours, if that, on the story. And I know that journalists are not experts in specialized fields. You probably haven’t thought much about biology since your high school class, and you probably know even less about the complex debate over evolution that has been on-going for years. You probably view the debate from afar through a political lens that casts evolutionists as the scientists and skeptics as the fundamentalists. Believe me, the debate is far more nuanced and complex than this. And again, it has nothing to do with creationism.

The bottom line is that your piece does need a correction. Without it you harm the reputation of yourself and your employer. You pointed out that the Los Angeles Times is one of many news outlets reporting that the bill will allow classroom discussion of creationism or other alternatives to evolution. I trust you realize this doesn’t justify false reporting. In fact, that is part of the story.

What the Los Angeles Times missed here was an opportunity to report on an often misunderstood story, particularly in the broad news media (this is not left versus right), and dig down a level beyond the usual cultural memes that continue to confuse the story.

Mr. Zucchino’s response to this second message of mine was simply to reaffirm that the Times will not print a correction. This exchange illustrates how the rules of journalism actually work (or don’t work) in practice and the high-standing and protection enjoyed by evolution.

Jeffrey, have you read the amendment? What specific language in the amendment bothers you? It seems that paranoia is betraying a deeper issue within the evolutionists explanatory framework.

This statement from the amendment-

"Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondaryschool governing authority, director of schools, school system administrators, or anypublic elementary or secondary school principal or administrators shall prohibit anyteacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand,analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientificweaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within thecurriculum framework developed by the state board of education."

Seriously, you're troubled by this?

Are you afraid that a student may question evolution and the teacher would have to entertain the question rather than shutdown the discussion? It could get a little uncomfortable by having to actually discuss evolutionary issues rather than expound dogmas from the podium.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the projection of tendentious hidden meanings in words involved here, is that those who are projecting such know full well that were Creationism or Intelligent design topics to actually be explained as a part of the curriculum -- when in fact the curriculum and amendment specifically exclude such, their lawyers would be all over it. (Evidence: simple disclaimers that warn that origins science theories are subject to strengths and limitations that mentioned that alternatives exist and that students can go look them up, attracted major lawsuits and questionable activist judicial decisions.)

In short, the willful false projection of motives and presumed hidden meanings you have exposed is designed to undercut any serious asking of questions on the inherent limitations of science and its methods, and theories that make those limitations particularly evident.

In short, there is a patent hidden agenda at work, indoctrination in closed-minded, naive scientism, the toxic environment in which all too many secularist ideologies thrive best.

I challenge those who want to pretend that science does not have serious limitations to expound Newton's Query 31 of his Opticks and tell us what is being acknowledged therein. (Then, let them explain to us the history of physics wherein Aristotelian then classical Newtonian physics have been superseded by quantum and relativity. Any competent physics programme will give that history. Its implications are plain.)

It strikes me as odd that the scientific establishment, and its enablers in the liberal establishment at large, would be opposed to a frank discussion of the merits and demerits of neo-Darwinian theory. Their reluctance seems evident to me in popular and professional literature, in the news media, and in the classroom at all levels. Their semi-hysterical response to the recently passed Tennessee law is a case in point.

To use a crude analogy, suppose that I'm a person of some mathematical ability. (Granted, that's a leap.) I suspect, say, that the currently known mathematical proofs which purport to demonstrate that pi is an irrational number are defective. I develop an argument, based on mathematical rigor and unassailable logic, that the proofs are in fact wrong—they do not prove what they claim to prove.

Now, in such a case, would I not have done a service to the mathematical community and (by extension) to those who rely upon the mathematical community? While I've not proved that pi is rational, I've convincingly demonstrated that we don't know for a fact that pi is irrational. Certainty that a given mathematical proposition is as yet unproven seems like a good thing. Conversely, confusion about what we know versus what we don't know, uncertainty as to which propositions are reliable and which are unreliable, seems like a bad thing.

Then would we not think it strange if a priestly cabal of mathematicians circled the wagons, and attacked me for my temerity in challenging the irrationality of pi? Rather than focusing on the strengths or weaknesses in the logic of my arguments, they and their friends in the media attack me for being a rabid, wild-eyed “rational numberist” zealot who's forwarding a hidden agenda to subvert the tender young minds of budding mathematicians nationwide. Would that not be somewhat unexpected behavior from those who claim for themselves the high ground in things logical and mathematical? Would that not seem both an illogical and an un-mathematical response to a logical and mathematical argument?

The analogy is imperfect, but I think it is nevertheless illustrative. What do the neo-Darwinists and their philosophical bedfellows have to lose by open, honest discussion of their theory? Actually, quite a bit. For them, as for the so-called “Darwin doubters”, the personal and cultural stakes are substantial.

Such paranoia is normally only found in someone that is uncomfortable with defending their position...

either out of ignorance of the subject matter, fear that their lies will be exposed, their position is untenable if critically analyzed, or they have a clinical mental condition that requires treatment. What other reason?

It strikes me as odd that the scientific establishment, and its enablers in the liberal establishment at large, would be opposed to a frank discussion of the merits and demerits of neo-Darwinian theory.

The scientific community has always allowed frank discussion of the merits and demerits of neo-Darwinian theory. There are any number of peer-reviewed professional journals that will publish any work that meets professional scientific standards. There is no need for a law to allow what already exists.

The only point of this law is to allow pseudo-scientific Creationist crap to be introduced into public science classes without first being vetted by the scientific community for accuracy and correctness. It's an end run around proper scientific process, completely dishonest and political in nature. That's why it is being so vigorously opposed by scientists and educators.

The only point of this law is to allow pseudo-scientific Creationist crap to be introduced into public science classes without first being vetted by the scientific community for accuracy and correctness.

LOL. This is funny because evolutionists routinely use the law enforced by the threat of police action to shove their pseudo-scientific superstitious crap down children's throats in the schools.

GEM of TKI wrote: Then, let them explain to us the history of physics wherein Aristotelian then classical Newtonian physics have been superseded by quantum and relativity. Any competent physics programme will give that history. Its implications are plain.

That's a popular misconception. Newtonian physics has not been superseded by quantum and relativistic theory in any sense of the word.

Classical mechanics has not been set aside or forced out by modern physics. It correctly describes things in the limit of slow speeds (compared to the speed of light) and weak gravity (compared to that of a black hole). Newtonian physics coexists in full harmony with Einstein's relativity (take the non-relativistic limit) and with quantum mechanics (quantum mechanics of large objects reduces to classical mechanics).

This is why we teach Newtonian mechanics to physics students. It is valid, time-tested science. (Aristotle's physics, in contrast, is not, so we don't teach it.) Quantum and relativistic theories have extended classical mechanics but they have not replaced it.

Matt Strassler's take on it is similar to mine. How Einstein trumped Newton. Both he and I teach physics at major research universities.

Newtonian dynamics gives empirically reliable results within a limited range of applicability, but it is definitely not the go-to for any ultimate current understanding of relevant phenomena and has not been so since 1900 - 1930 or so.

The assertion that quantum and relativity have "extended" classical physics is just plain wrong. The Newtonian and relativistic concepts of space, time, mass etc. are quite sharply distinct, and if the atom were a classical phenomenon, electrons would be under accelerated motion and would radiate away their energy, spiralling into the nucleus. Similarly, the ultraviolet catastrophe and the photo effect, double slit interference for particles etc etc are inherently inexplicable on a classical view (which of course is broader than just Newton).

Strictly, Newtonian physics is a useful model, like how models of bipolar transistor amplifiers based on idealised current sources, resistors and capacitors are useful models but are not the go-to for understanding the underlying device physics.

However, all of this is in the end a distractive tangential, red herring to strawman game, where the main issue is unanswerable: Newton in his Opticks Query 31, plainly established the inherent logical and epistemological limitations of empirical science.

So, it is entirely in order to require that students be exposed to that limit, and with particular reference to topics where there is reason to believe that there are significant, too often unacknowledged challenges.

You seem to think that quantum mechanics and relativity are "correct" versions of reality that have superseded Newtonian mechanics. That isn't so. All three of these physical theories are approximations that break down in certain limits. Just like Newtonian mechanics no longer works at high speeds, quantum mechanics and gravity become contradictory on the Planck scale. Physicists hope to derive a theory of quantum gravity, which will extend quantum physics and relativity.

When one understands the relations between physical theories, Newtonian mechanics takes its rightful place among other theories, alongside relativity and quantum mechanics. All of them are approximations valid in some patch of the parameter space, none is entirely universal.

I don't care how much metaphysics you put into it, but this point, however minor, is too often misunderstood by the lay people like yourself.

I came by again as it seems sadly predictable that you will twist what I have to say into a strawman caricature pushed in my mouth to suit your rhetorical purposes:

FALSE:>> You seem to think that quantum mechanics and relativity are "correct" versions of reality that have superseded Newtonian mechanics . . . >>

Please, think about what that is saying about your attitudes.

If you had bothered to look at what I linked from Newton in Opticks, Query 31, you would see that -- in the place that gives the foundation, c. 1704, of the typical school level description of science methods -- he identifies that it is a limitation of inductive methods that they may not give final, demonstrative truth. Indeed, that is the precise reason why I pointed out that in 350 years in our common discipline there were two major scientific revolutions.

Quantum and relativity are at present the best explanations we have, not the final truth, and nothing I have ever suggested implies any naive claim to final truth, only to empirical reliability per tests; so far. Newtonian dynamics is known to have even more restrictive limits, where for large, slow moving bodies quantum and relativity will reduce to the classical result, which is as it should be given the empirical evidence; in short, it is in effect comparable to a hybrid pi model for a transistor amplifier. A full quantum analysis of the BJT would not give materially better results in the region of relevance, but no one is pretending that the BJT is a black box full of current sources, resistors and capacitors.

And this point that we have known limitations like that is not metaphysics, it is the history of our common science and its LOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL (as in grounds of knowledge) limits.

But, again, all of this is tangential and on strawmen.

The substantive issue at stake is that science and its methods are inherently limited epistemologically and logically, and those learning science should be honestly taught such. And, it is in cases where there are matters of controversy, where this is particularly evident and relevant.

The Tennessee law, in short, has face validity, and those who are trying to insinuate and accuse and twist need to address these basic points.

I came by again as it seems sadly predictable that you will twist what I have to say into a strawman caricature pushed in my mouth to suit your rhetorical purposes:

FALSE:>> You seem to think that quantum mechanics and relativity are "correct" versions of reality that have superseded Newtonian mechanics . . . >>

Please, think about what that is saying about your attitudes.

If you had bothered to look at what I linked from Newton in Opticks, Query 31, you would see that -- in the place that gives the foundation, c. 1704, of the typical school level description of science methods -- he identifies that it is a limitation of inductive methods that they may not give final, demonstrative truth. Indeed, that is the precise reason why I pointed out that in 350 years in our common discipline there were two major scientific revolutions.

Quantum and relativity are at present the best explanations we have, not the final truth, and nothing I have ever suggested implies any naive claim to final truth, only to empirical reliability per tests; so far. Newtonian dynamics is known to have even more restrictive limits, where for large, slow moving bodies quantum and relativity will reduce to the classical result, which is as it should be given the empirical evidence; in short, it is in effect comparable to a hybrid pi model for a transistor amplifier. A full quantum analysis of the BJT would not give materially better results in the region of relevance, but no one is pretending that the BJT is a black box full of current sources, resistors and capacitors.

And this point that we have known limitations like that is not metaphysics, it is the history of our common science and its LOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL (as in grounds of knowledge) limits.

But, again, all of this is tangential and on strawmen.

The substantive issue at stake is that science and its methods are inherently limited epistemologically and logically, and those learning science should be honestly taught such. And, it is in cases where there are matters of controversy, where this is particularly evident and relevant.

The Tennessee law, in short, has face validity, and those who are trying to insinuate and accuse and twist need to address these basic points.

What you refer to as "the scientific community" does, of course, engage in internal debates over various evolutionary issues. But that community closes ranks quickly when any heterodox opinions are voiced by those whom they perceive as outsiders. Certainly, to the best of my knowledge, there is no serious coverage of these internally contested evolutionary issues in pre-college textbooks, let alone any substantial coverage of heterodox ideas. Rather, a unified front is presented to the student, and neo-Darwinian evolution is touted as a monolithic, universally accepted truth, as if all legitimate scientists approved of the theory, at least in its general outlines. This is not a healthy state of affairs, from a purely scientific standpoint.

Your implicit definition of “accuracy” and “correctness” makes what is “accurate” and “correct” a function solely of the “scientific community”. But who decides what persons are included in the scientific community? What and whence are the requirements for inclusion? Once decision-makers are in place, and the rules for inclusion defined, the decision-makers can begin to function as a collective gatekeeper on scientific accuracy and correctness. Such a group might be regarded (not without some justification) as a sort of Politburo, deciding what is and is not acceptable as science—even extending to what may or may not be permissible to discuss or debate. You don't see a problem there?

A pressing concern for Darwin doubters is that a de facto scientific community already exists. It is well-established, well-funded (primarily with taxpayer dollars), and highly influential. It exerts its considerable pro-Darwin influence less on the merits of its scientific arguments than on the exercise of raw social and political power.

(As an aside, note the difficulties and ambiguity inherent in any attempt to intelligently discuss this topic, if your implicit definition of the “scientific community” is accepted at the outset. If a person is not a member of the “scientific community”, as you use the phrase, he or she a scientist? If not, then “all scientists” is precisely equivalent to “scientific community”; any person not hewing the pro-Darwin line is necessarily excluded, and hence marginalized, even if he or she has been highly trained in one or more of the sciences, and has proven very successful in scientific endeavors. In addition, any proposition or question at odds with the fundamental premises of neo-Darwinism becomes unscientific, and hence scarcely worthy of debate. To repeat, this is not a healthy state of affairs for science, properly so-called.)

I give Zucchino some credit for at least attempting to rationalize his inaccuracy, contorted as the result may be.

It contrasts with many commenters, both in the media and right here on this page, who are content to mindlessly parrot what others have said.

That's consistent with the mainstream approach to evaluating all evidence on this subject. What appears to confirm does confirm. What clearly disconfirms also confirms. A law is obviously intended to allow what it explicitly disallows.

Perhaps Thorton can bolster his irrational a priori commitment and impress a few lurkers by calling me some names.

F/N: Onlookers, the above exchange shows the sort of all too commonly encountered "standard" tactics that are ever so often resorted to by objectors to design theory.

As those familiar with UD will know, I have summed the "standard" resort and tactics up as the trifecta fallacy.

A red herring is used to distract attention from the substantive issue [which is going where the objectors would not wish to go], and the distractor is then led out to a strawman caricature soaked in subtle or blatant ad hominems. The soaked ad hominem is then ignited by snide or incendiary rhetoric, to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere.

Voila, the misleading impression has been created that the substantive issue has been dealt with and the target of the ad hominem is naive, or silly or hypocritical or worse. This is never excusable and when resorted to by people of a certain level it is worse than that.

In this case, Olegt has now repeatedly tried to distract from the substantive issue that scientific methods as inductive methods are inherently limited and provisional in results. He full well knows (as does anyone who has done say A level physics . . . comparable to the first two 4-year college level semester courses, Phys 101 and 102) that Physics has undergone two major revolutions in 350 years. This demonstrates the force of Newton's point in Opticks Query 31, that scientific, inductive methods are inherently provisional and subject to empirical correction. And, on the classic pessimistic induction, if we know that scientific theories have a track record of being shown to be limited and in need of revision, we have no reason to imagine that we have arrived at a final theory in our day. (Hence the recent stir when it looked like some neutrinos may have been a cricket pitch too fast in several hundred km.)

The relevance of this to the Tennessee law, is that students should be taught the strengths and limits of sci methods, and that controversial areas are especially useful for this. To say this is not to revert to injecting "religion" into science or science education, or the like. And in fact, the law goes out of its way to underscore that.

That objectors are resorting to distractions and polarisations speaks volumes, and not to their credit.

A red herring is used to distract attention from the substantive issue [which is going where the objectors would not wish to go], and the distractor is then led out to a strawman caricature soaked in subtle or blatant ad hominems. The soaked ad hominem is then ignited by snide or incendiary rhetoric, to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere.

Voila, the misleading impression has been created that the substantive issue has been dealt with and the target of the ad hominem is naive, or silly or hypocritical or worse. This is never excusable and when resorted to by people of a certain level it is worse than that.

Those who insist it is an undeniable fact that everything arose from nothing are truly a fascinating study.

I like this case of the Tennessee law because while some readers may find it difficult to follow the scientific details, the evolutionist's lies about the law are perfectly clear for all to see.

I agree - it is indeed fascinating how creationists expect intelligent people not to know anything about the motivation behind the law and the sad and long history of American religious hostility to evolution.

I agree - it is indeed fascinating how creationists expect intelligent people not to know anything about the motivation behind the law and the sad and long history of American religious hostility to evolution.

Luckily, the reporter was not fooled.

This is astonishing. Scientific criticism is not allowed? Even though evolution is based on religious claims, scientific criticism of evolution is disallowed because you say *it* is religious, even though it is scientific. It is actually religious because you say it is, and that's it?

I am trying to figure you evolutionists out. Do you really expect people to take you seriously?

I agree - it is indeed fascinating how creationists expect intelligent people not to know anything about the motivation behind the law and the sad and long history of American religious hostility to evolution.

Creationist paid professional liars like CH here aren't targeting intelligent people, those scientifically competent and/or possessing critical reasoning skills. They're targeting the ignorant mouth breathers and those who desperately need something - anything - to prop up their weak religious faith. One of the big reasons for their continued attempts to dumb down public school science standards is to ensure a future supply of scientifically ignorant laymen they can easily con.

The scientific community recognizes the danger, which is why these Creationist charlatans are opposed so vehemently.

>> [Whereas:] (1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education may cause debate and disputation including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning; and(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectation concerning how they should present information when debate and disputation occur on such subjects . . . .

[Therefore . . . ] The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education . . . .

(c) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrators, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrators shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught within the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education.(d) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion. [Amendment No. 1 to SB0893] >>________

And BTW, the commonly held view of the Scopes Trial is grossly wrong, thanks to 80+ years of willful distortion in the face of what people knew or should have known to be true.

In short, Olegt has here grossly and irresponsibly distorted the matter.

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.

You will observe the consistent resort to dismissals and/or to red herrings led away to ad hominem soaked strawmen and set alight.

After several days, there has been no serious response to the substantial matter: there are inherent limitations to scientific reasoning, as an application of inductive reasoning. There are legitimate questions as to whether certain claims made in the name of science and science education can bear the scientific and policy weight put on them. It is also patent that there is a climate of intimidation that has been used to suppress legitimate questioning in light of the limitations of science.

(That exploding heads advert is a classic.)

It is patent that the law to make it clear that such intimidation should not have the last word has been willfully misreported, and that requests for correction have been disregarded.

All of this is telling, and doubly so in light of the trifecta rhetorical tactics we have been seeing.

The balance on the record is plain for those willing to see. (You may want to see my own comment on the law and the context of issues here.)

Onlookers: Remember, too, the law is specifically on removing a climate of intimidation in respect of discussing how the inherent limitations of scientific thought affect claims that are often presented in schools or to the public in the name of science. GEM of TKI

you ducked the issue at stake to gin up a fake controversy based on strawmen soaked in ad hominems, Then, when I corrected and drew attention back to the main issue you whistled by the graveyard and now want to loop back and pretend your specious objections had merit.

Whether my specific objections to your characterization of Newtonian mechanics have merit is a separate question. It is abundantly clear, however, that I did not say a word about limitations of science. So you are off by a mile.

And your friends at UD (hi null!) should do you a favor and let you know that the strawman-soaked-in-a-hominems shtick is getting old. Time to come up with a few fresh catchphrases.